The scandal of the Trade Union represenatitive and the club's employees

Chris Webb is a Union representative, yet he is now threatening to name and shame. Unbelievable, and yet I did expect it.
How on earth can a Union man stand there with his Pasoti Trust hat on and threaten employees with bullying if they don't agree to the hugely unfair settlement being offerd By Brent. There's only one shame I can see, and it certainly ain't the employees. Is he saying that he'll bully some footballer like Joe Mason or an office girl if they don't comply ?
No wonder Unions have lost their support over the years. They don't represent the employees any more, nothing but mere management and owners' tools.

Quite astonishing if true but then again, how can they get on with commissioning plaques in honour of the sacrifices these people have made, if they won't comply ! ?

Let's just get over the finishing line and have a party !

Dont confuse peoples employment with their Argyle activities, one should not affect the other. Anyway as an ex Shop Steward myself, one does not have a lot of time for non-union members. The Players have Union representation, the staff apparently do not, which makes them scabs and blacklegs and so deserve everything not coming to them.

Read his words for yourself and make your own mind up

Quote :

the signs are positive on the whole with a few individual negotiations still taking place. We urge all parties involved to support James Brents proposal. Nobody wants to get into a position where the media embark on a "name and shame" campaign. Do the right thing and play your part in saving Argyle. History awaits you - make sure its for the right reasons.

Outrageous comments. Just how are the 'media' going to get hold of the names of those involved in these private individual discussions and what is said ?

penzancepirate wrote:

Read his words for yourself and make your own mind up

Quote :

the signs are positive on the whole with a few individual negotiations still taking place. We urge all parties involved to support James Brents proposal. Nobody wants to get into a position where the media embark on a "name and shame" campaign. Do the right thing and play your part in saving Argyle. History awaits you - make sure its for the right reasons.

Outrageous comments. Just how are the 'media' going to get hold of the names of those involved in these private individual discussions and what is said ?

Penzance Pirate you really are a nasty piece or work.

Where do I mention me going after people? Am I the media now?

How do you know who the individuals are and what their motives are? For all you know it could be one of the ex directors holding things up in which case action would be correct.

To the other posters on this site - honestly, take a look at the vile, personal nature of the original post on this thread and you will see why the site has very little respect.

All of the solid views are wasted and masked by this. And I admit it Rickler, Tring, Frank etc have all contributed ideas although we've had our differences.

PP - you are on another level.

For Christ sake Chris, if you're going to live by the sword then accept death by it and grow some balls FFS, it's a feking Internet football site so stop being such a big girls blowse and a fekin drama queen!

It is possible that the Pirate has got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
Perhaps you could clarify the situation Chris.
Are we talking about 'ordinary' employees here ?

It does surprise me that Chris is prepared to drag employees through the gutter for something that they are entitled to and have earned, unless we've got it wrong somehow.

If it's a genuine wage demand the surely the Trust should arrange for collections if the Trust leaders want to settle the issue bad enough, or is it someone like Campbell?

Could it possibly be a very desperate former director?

[quote="Tringreen"]It is possible that the Pirate has got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
Perhaps you could clarify the situation Chris.
Are we talking about 'ordinary' employees here ?[/quote]

No we are not Tring.

Give us a clue then Chris and we maybe able to back you?

Tringreen wrote:

It is possible that the Pirate has got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
Perhaps you could clarify the situation Chris.
Are we talking about 'ordinary' employees here ?

According to the 'erald,no.The dissenting voices appear to be a couple of ex players,a high profile former employee and someone connected with the old board.However,it must beg the question-say if a member of staff did object to receiving only 17% of their dues upfront? Would they be "named and shamed"? Personally,i think this is rather a dangerous road to go down and different,possibly more subtle and timely, tactics used.

It's worth remembering that these are staff, they will not have our attachment or emotion for the club/business. If it was an employee of Woolworths would we expect them to lose a wage? I think you're right GS, dodgy territory for the Trust.

If it's a former director then he can go f"^* himself!

Greenskin wrote:

According to the 'erald,no.The dissenting voices appear to be a couple of ex players

So.....'ordinary' employees? What if they were still at the club?

Should they not be given the same respect as ex-staff members, like for e.g. Cobi's dad?

Greenskin wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

It is possible that the Pirate has got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
Perhaps you could clarify the situation Chris.
Are we talking about 'ordinary' employees here ?

According to the 'erald,no.The dissenting voices appear to be a couple of ex players,a high profile former employee and someone connected with the old board.However,it must beg the question-say if a member of staff did object to receiving only 17% of their dues upfront? Would they be "named and shamed"? Personally,i think this is rather a dangerous road to go down and different,possibly more subtle and timely, tactics used.

If it's the category of employees quoted by the 'Erald, then maybe they ought to be made to wriggle a bit.
The real losers are those who are only supposed to be paid a living wage and they seem prepared to put up with anything.
Was/is PAFC a no unions zone for non players ?

I am very uncomfortable with naming names as we don't have the slightest idea of their motivations and reasons for holding out.

But the lesson we MUST have learnt by now is that these things can get out of hand very quickly. However well meaning the pressure campaigns on Stapes and Panda were, it only took one or two idiots and the old bill are being called in. I read Chris' post as a "heads up", rather then a warning or a threat. But people read things different ways.

GOB wrote:

It does surprise me that Chris is prepared to drag employees through the gutter for something that they are entitled to and have earned, unless we've got it wrong somehow.

If it's a genuine wage demand the surely the Trust should arrange for collections if the Trust leaders want to settle the issue bad enough, or is it someone like Campbell?

Could it possibly be a very desperate former director?

Yes, it could well be some Wrathall thing, some Synan thing, it could also be Campbell, but I find it almost impossible to believe that Pasoti Trust would give their darling Campbell a bad time even if he were proved a body snatcher.
My guess has always been that Campbell's unpaid wages were turned into a loan before March for some strange reason and have long been itemised seperately on the balance sheet. I can't wait to find out if that 'loan' gets treated any differently than the 'ordinary employees' under the Brent deal. Perhaps IJN could let us know when everything is done and dusted.
However, the point remains, ANY employee, and that includes Ridsdale, or Campbell for that matter, has the right to keep his negotiations private... and any Trade Union bod that thinks that's a right that should be breached is on the road to doing a Deggsy Hatton. and joining the Cartier bunch.

So.... would you support one of the "ordinary" back-room staff who, in standing out for his/her full pay refused to stand aside for the good of the club and thereby brought it down?

In that situation, I assume, in practise if not in principle, for Brent that amount would be pocket-money and he may be willing to slip the said employee a fiver out of his back pocket.

Alternatively, would you support someone with many thousands in the balance who held-out for their rights?

funny man wrote:

So.... would you support one of the "ordinary" back-room staff who, in standing out for his/her full pay refused to stand aside for the good of the club and thereby brought it down?

In that situation, I assume, in practise if not in principle, for Brent that amount would be pocket-money and he may be willing to slip the said employee a fiver out of his back pocket.

Alternatively, would you support someone with many thousands in the balance who held-out for their rights?

I would support ANY EMPLOYEE who stood up for their own personal contractural rights with their employers .... even an investment banker. If we lose that principle, we're a gonner as far as wage justice is concerned.
The time to deal with obvious freeloaders and chancers that definitely exist within the employment situation is at the time of signing the contract. Don't employ them. If they 'employed themself', that's a whole different ball game ... that's more akin creative accountancy and even fraud in some circumstances.
Let's not forget here, the unsaid thing is monied ex-owners are getting some of their money back at the expense of these 'employees'. I believe this horrible 5 year 50% employee deal concocted by Brent, even worse than the Ridsdale plan, has been done in order to pay as much as humanly possible to the previous owners. Shame on Brent for trying that.... but then he's only looking after his own.

I think I'm with you on that one - but I'm unsure if push came to shove whether a single person would be right to put the whole edifice at risk. And, as I said, if it's an "ordinary" person Brent would put his hand into his pocket but if it's a big boy, say an ex-player owed thousands then it may become more bloody.

Could be interesting if Peter Reid was the "high profile former employee" who is not currently playing ball.Wouldn't blame him in the slightest,TBH.

I would guess that Arnason is one of the 2 players after the way he was treated regarding his sacking.

Chemical Ali wrote:

I would guess that Arnason is one of the 2 players after the way he was treated regarding his sacking.

Very good call Ali, he crossed my mind. But we don't know, so many people dislike this club now because of what it has done to them under the days of Ridsdale. I bet some are hoping it is Seip or Maclean ... oh how they would love an excuse to try and bully them.

Of course, what this whole thing does do is give Brent and the money men the old Heaney excuse not to complete for yet another month .... what a surprise. In fact, these days, whenever I see such snippets, I immediately assume it's just another deferrment.

Greenskin wrote:

Could be interesting if Peter Reid was the "high profile former employee" who is not currently playing ball.Wouldn't blame him in the slightest,TBH.

A whip around on the farm would solve that problem easily.

Plus... No doubt it would fall under the 'saving the club' rule and the Trust could also donate whatever funds it has left in reserves to the cause!

Rickler wrote:

Plus... No doubt it would fall under the 'saving the club' rule and the Trust could also donate whatever funds it has left in reserves to the cause!

Look at it this way Ricks. At least your membership fee will be put to a good cause.

I bet you don't get caught out again next year.

I am still amazed that there is no Union organisation at HP, will it be encouraged in the future or is a compliant workforce desirable with Ridders in charge?